Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S.Shinde, M.S.Karnik, JJ.
Sunaina Holey - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharastra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition Stamp No. 4732 of 2020 (CRIMINAL WP-ASDB-LDVC-287 of 2020)
Decided On : 05-05-2021
The court quashed an FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community. The court held that the petitioner's tweet, in which she criticized a person who blamed the Prime Minister of India for the COVID-19 pandemic, did not constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC. The court found that the petitioner's tweet was not intended to promote hatred or enmity between different groups, and that it did not have the likelihood of causing public disorder or disturbance of law and order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a social media influencer, reposted a video on Twitter in which a person blamed the Prime Minister of India for the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner criticized the person in her tweet, stating that he was spreading misinformation and that the pandemic was not caused by the Prime Minister. An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 153A of the IPC for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's tweet did not constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC. The court held that the petitioner's tweet was not intended to promote hatred or enmity between different groups, and that it did not have the likelihood of causing public disorder or disturbance of law and order. The court also found that the petitioner was not the author of the video, and that she had merely reposted it on her Twitter feed. The court further held that the police had not been able to establish that the petitioner's tweet had caused any public disorder or disturbance of law and order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's tweet constituted an offense under Section 153A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's tweet did not constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC because it was not intended to promote hatred or enmity between different groups, and it did not have the likelihood of causing public disorder or disturbance of law and order. The court also found that the petitioner was not the author of the video, and that she had merely reposted it on her Twitter feed.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 153A of the IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent.
2. Invoking the Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No. 97 OF 2020 dated 15/04/2020 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') .
3. The said FIR has been registered against the Petitioner for a "tweet" (or referred to as a statement) which she posted on the social media website known as 'Twitter' on 14/04/2020. The said tweet reads thus :
"Crowd shouting Yeh ALLAH KE TARAF SE NAHI HAI YE MODI KE TARAF SE HAI- What's going to happen next @ ofceofut @ AUThackeray @priyankac19 PR karona ab. Blame it on @narendramodiji.Hain Bandra Masjid Location Hai. Ab aur kuch bolu Single Source Kaaf Hai. @ Dev_Fadnavis Help".
4. It is the stand of the Respondent - State that by reposting the video on Twitter with the above message on 14/04/2020, the Petitioner thereby sought to create hatred and enmity between Hindus and Muslims. The transcript of the video recording reposted by the Petitioner on Twitter is as follows:
"Person addressing the crowd (Person 1): Tum log jo ye dar rahe hai thik hai, takleef hai, takleef ho Rahi hai, mein samaj sakta hu, lekin..... ye Allah ke tarraf se hai, agar jo ye bol de ke ye Allah ke taraf se nahi hai wo iman waala nahi hai. Bolo Allah ke taraf se hai ke nahi"
In the video, a member of the crowd is seen blaming the Prime Minister of India for the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.
5. According to learned Counsel Shri Chandrachud appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, if the contents of tweet, the FIR, the materials accompanying the FIR and the material collected during the investigation by the police from April 2020 are considered in its entirety, it would clearly reveal that ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 153A IPC are not made out. Learned Advocate submitted that the Petitioner is not the author or the creator of the said video and that, no case has been registered against the person(s) who created the said video. He further pointed out that no case has been registered against the person blaming Prime Minister of India for the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic in the video. According to him, the Petitioner merely "reposted" the video on her twitter feed which was already created by someone else.
6. Learned Counsel urged that while "Person 1" in the video informs the crowd that Covid-19 pandemic is an act of God, one member of the crowd can be heard shouting that Covid-19 pandemic is not an act of God but has been brought about by the Prime Minister of India. The Petitioner was unhappy with this viewpoint and reposted the video in order to criticize the viewpoint of the person that Covid 19 pandemic was brought about by Prime Minister of India.
7. Learned Counsel then invited our attention to Section 153A of the IPC. He submitted that the ingredients of Section 153 are not made out even upon considering all materials on record. Learned Counsel relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court and also those of the United States (for short US) Supreme Court in support of his submissions that no case is made out against the Petitioner.
8. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1. According to him there are four principles discernible from the said decision which are thus :
a. Firstly, there is no need to wait for an investigation to be completed before quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (paragraphs 10, 20). In Manzar Sayeed Khan's (supra) case, the High Court had taken the view that the investigation must be completed before an FIR can be quashed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this vi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
